Volume 10 (2013)

In this issue:

[Click Current and Past Issues for Downloads of Each Article]Editor's Introduction by Travis YorkAdvancing Graduate Student Agency by KerryAnn O'MearaThe
Development of Academic Self-Efficacy among First-Year College Students
in a Comprehensive Public University by Christos Korgan, Nathan
Durdella, and Mark StevensGender, Spirituality, and Community Engagement: Complexities for Students at Catholic Women's Colleges by Kathryn A. E. Enke and Kelly T. WintersThe Impact of State Financial Support on the Internationalization of Public Higher Education: A Panel Data Analysis by Chrystal Annunciata George Mwangi

International Student Diversification and the High-Tuition High-Aid Model

Although we
typically discuss international students as one group, it is important to keep
in mind that these students are not one uniform population (Levin, 2012). Students
from China and students from Saudi Arabia are just as different as students
from China and the United States. Institutions of higher education (IHE) must
diversify their international student portfolio to stay true to the mission of
diversity. In order to diversify this portfolio, the funding structure for
international students must change. A common model for tuition and aid
disbursement in the U.S. is the high-tuition, high-aid (HH)model. This model is often used to execute student
access and diversity missions (Curse &Singell, 2010). Unfortunately, this
is often done without regard to international student diversity and access. Here
I will explore the high tuition high aid (HH) model and its potential
application to international students.

The Current Application of the HH Model

Many IHEs use price discrimination
in order to attract high achieving or culturally diverse students, and allow
access to students who would not be capable of attending otherwise (Weisbrod,
Ballou, & Asch, 2008). This is done to craft a class where the students themselves
can be inputs that increase the value of the overall educational experience
(Winston, 1999). Price discrimination works because students have different
price elasticities, what a student is willing to pay for college. For domestic
students, funding is awarded based on their expected price elasticity
(Toukoushina & Paulsen, 2006). Students who can afford to pay more will
often do so because they are not as price sensitive and vice versa (Curse &
Singell, 2010). This principle is the foundation of the HH model.

In the HH model, the average student
pays more money but this creates surplus revenue that is used to fund financial
aid for students who could not afford to attend, or would choose a different
IHE, otherwise. It is known that this system often does not generate enough
revenue to aid all of the students that need funding: the excess funding must
come from government subsidies or fund raising (Curse &Singell, 2010). IHEs
with international students may submit the international student’s excess
tuition dollars into the pot of money to help fund domestic students. This is
typically a one-way street. International students are not usually aid
eligible.

Price discrimination in higher
education is a way of achieving vertical equity. This is the idea that students
should be able to attend college despite their ability to pay. This idea need
not be applied to solely domestic students. International students bring all of
the advantages that justify price discrimination: cultural diversity (Caluya, Probyn, & Vyas,
2011); high academic
aptitude (Mamiseishvili, 2012); and, potentially, economically
diverse students (Aw, 2012).International students should not be “cash cows” used to produce revenue
for domestic students (Caluya et al., 2011). They are actually valuable inputs
that can enrich the student experience. Perhaps these students should be funded
accordingly.

Mission of Diversification: Application to Types of IHEs

The decision to
fund international students would be heavily dependent on the mission of the
school. It is known that IHEs are constantly trying to balance their mission
and their finances, this is known as the two-good framework. The mission of an institution often depends on
the type of school and the source of their funding (Weisbrod, Ballou, & Asch,
2008). Public schools
tend to have their mission focus on students from their own geographic area, so
they may not be able to implement a model such as this. However, many private institution’s
missions do not specify that they are to serve only domestic students. In fact,
many scholars believe that the mission of an IHEs goes beyond borders (Aw, 2012).In addition, in 2011, 50% of institutions said that their missions
include international or global education (CIGE, 2012). Schools
who believe this should not depend on international students to pay the way of
domestic students; instead they should work to ensure access to international
students the same way they ensure access to domestic students. This means attempting vertical equity for international
students as well. Unfortunately, while some schools may be attempting to
implement similar plans for international students, many are not. The
international HH model is a way to do exactly this.

A New HH Model: The International HH Model

A model that supports international
students would have to put international and domestic student tuition into two
separate pots, domestic and international. International revenue would no longer be used
to supplement domestic students, but rather to supplement international
students from developing countries that could not afford U.S. tuition just yet.
As the elasticity of the students from different countries changes so too would
the cost of tuition for these students. For example, Chinese students could
subsidize the tuition of Indonesian students for a few years. When the Indonesian
economy picks up, the Indonesian students could help subsidize the new developing
nation’s students; this cycle could continue. The most qualified applicants
from all over the world would be able to attend, not just the most qualified
applicants from the richest countries. This could apply to economic diversity
within countries as well. Scholars and practitioners have long lamented the
fact that the U.S. only educates the young elites of other countries (Aw, 2012).The application of this model could help to correct this, by funding
less wealthy students.

By examining the present HH model
one can see that international students are often used as “cash cows” to add to
domestic student funding (Caluya et al., 2011). Presently, the HH model does not
account for the need to diversify international students, but it could. Diversifying
international students would stay true to the mission of diversity and access
in a global sense. This is something we should be moving toward in an
increasingly globalized world.

Tiffany Viggiano is a first year graduate
student in Higher Education
Administration and Policy at the University of California, Riverside. Using her Anthropology background, Tiffany
hopes that her research will internationalize higher education as a way of
bringing greater diversity to the community college. She has
received numerous academic honors, including the Chancellors Distinguished
Fellowship, and graduated Magna Cum Laude with a B.S. in Anthropology last
year.

References

Aw, F. (2012). The International
Student Question: 45 Years Later. Journal of College Admission, (214),
10–11.

Caluya,
G., Probyn, E., & Vyas, S. (2011). “Affective Eduscapes”: The Case of
Indian Students within Australian International Higher Education. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 41(1), 85–99.

Center
for International and Global Engagement (CIGE). (2012). Mapping
Internationalization on U.S Campuses. American Council on Education.